Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17
that the economies matter. i think whether it's been leon panetta, bob gates, admiral mullen, the constant focus on economic feminism, i don't know canada's net position with china, but it does raise this fundamental question of whether american debt is an asset or a liability. you know, the conference in dallas yesterday were recently, where someone made a comment that an american source of power to every different in the past that it defies the pentagon and the size american debt that we're too big to fail. deadhorse lake bigger problem than us. i be interested when you're anything about policy do you look at that as a source of leverage or does it strain american options tremendous a? >> steve, very simply, the u.s. situation with respect to our deficit and debt is a national security liability. we need our senior leadership. we need a senior leadership to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so. we have a requirement to do so. at the foundation of national power is ultimately economic comment and in terms of global influence, in terms of the ability to support a military, the economic is
commanded our respect in a remarkable way. part of it was because of his service in the war. he and bob dole, our former colleague, literally were wounded at about the same time in europe and were in the same hospital recovering from tremendously serious wounds. senator inouye, of course, later was awarded the congressional medal of honor for that. senator pryor was telling the story that when senator inouye was finally elected to congress he wrote senator dole a note and said, "i'm here. where are you?" because both of them, when they were recovering from their war wounds, had determined that one day they wanted to serve in the united states congress. inouye got here first. a few years ago senator inouye and senator ted stevens invited a number of us to go with them to china. it was quite an experience. senator stevens -- of course, another world war ii veteran -- had flown the first cargo play plane into what was then peking in 1974. and senator inouye was well-regarded in china for that service. and so the group of norse -- there must have been -- and so the group of norse -- ther of se m
is unaccountable, saturday night at 10:00 eastern on "after words" on c-span2. >>> pennsylvania senator bob casey on syria's civil war. he spoke along with incoming house foreign affairs committee chair ed royce on iran's nuclear program. the foundation for defense of democracies hosted this event. >> welcome. welcome again to the foundation for the defense of democracies annual washington forum. my name is mark argosh and i'm a proud supporter of fdd. it brings me great pleasure to introduce another senior official doing great work on capitol hill. congressman ed royce currently chairs the subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade. last week he was selected to be the next chairman of the house foreign affairs committee. congratulations, congressman, on this new and important role. [applause] >> thanks, mark, thank you very much. >> it's no surprise that congressman royce has been entrusted by his colleagues with the committee's gavel have. he stands consistently at the forefront at the fight against global terrorist groups that threaten the united states including al qaeda. in his un
's not even bob dole's treaty, although he certainly is a person who has been deeply involved. the vote on the treaty is the right thing to do on its merits. i think that it's important to note that every major veterans' group -- madam president, i ask that the list of the veterans' groups in support be included in the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i've not forgotten that 36 republicans signed a letter opposing consideration of any treaty during the lame duck, but there's no reason why we shouldn't have a vote on this. the letter says that they would oppose consideration, but we did have the motion to proceed. some may be worried about passing a treaty in a lame-duck session. the argument has no basis in the constitution or the senate practice. since the 1970's alone the senate has approved treaties during lame-duck sessions a total of 19 times. there's nothing special or different about lame-duck sessions. i'd like to address a few of the misconceptions about the treaty that i keep hearing. it's true that the treaty establishes a committee,
, he said. i met jim webb in my office not far from here. as a result of senator bob kerry asking me if i would spend some time with him, i was happy to do so, i'll never forget that meeting, just the three of us in the room. for those of us who have worked with bob kerrey, he was such -- he is and was such a vibrant person. it's almost mischievous, i guess is the way to put it. you could just tell how he had just a little touch of differentness. and when he brought him in to visit with me, i learned very quickly they were both warriors. bob kerrey, a navy seal, recipient of the medal of honor, and jim webb, as we've said, navy cross, two silver stars, two bronze stars. both veterans of the vietnam war. as we sat talking, it was obvious that they were both fighters, warriors, and jim certainly proved that in his 2006 campaign. the reason bob wanted me to visit with him is because jim webb had decided he wanted to run for senate. what did i think of it? well, i probably told jim what a lot of people told him -- you want to run for the senate? the election's right upon us. no, he said,
spent on friday about an hour with bob kerrey. bob kerrey and i reflected back on his experience here in the senate and one memorable meeting that he and i had. and the purpose of that meeting was for bob kerrey to introduce me to the presiding officer. and it was a wonderful meeting because when the meeting finished -- i won't go into detail on everything i said but the presiding officer knows -- i came out of that meeting recognizing how what kindred spirits these two gallant warriors are and were. both having been highly decorated, one in the navy, the other a marine. one medal of honor, the other -- the presiding officer -- navy cross, silver star, more than one bronze star for valor, a number of purple hearts. as i said again, but i can't say it too much, what an honor and pleasure it has been to serve in this body with the senator from virginia, jim webb. i've learned so much about what difference a positive attitude will make. no better example of that is the new g.i. bill of rights. to think that a new senator, a brand-new senator would have the idea, the confidence that i can
sons, mark, bob, john and david, and the entire lugar family, most of which is with us here in the galleries today. their strength and sacrifices have been indispensable to my public service. i'm also very much indebted to a great number of talented and loyal friends who have served with me in the senate, including, by my count, more than 300 senators, hundreds of personal and committee staff members, and more than a thousand student interns. in my experience, it is difficult to conceive of a better platform from which to devote one's self to public service and the search for solutions to national and international problems. at its best, the senate is one of the founders' most important creations. a great deal has been written recently about political discord in the united states, with some commentators judging that partisanship is at an all-time high. having seen quite a few periods in the congress when political struggles were portrayed in this way, i hesitate to describe our current state as the most partisan ever, but i do believe that as an institution, we have not live
to avoid the sequestration. >> bob samuelson, "washington post". i think the proposals are to reduce the marine corps by 20,000, and the army by 80,000 from their peaks, and there's much speculation thamuch speculr cuts in the pentagon budget would reduce the additional cuts in both the army and the marines. if the marines was put in a position where it had to occupy and protected the oil field of the persian gulf for an extended period of time say five or six years are those forces adequate to do the job? >> one of the reasons at least i was able to get through as chairman is to try not to speculate much on hypothet speculate much on hypothetical. the reductions in both the army and the marine corps have been in the budget now, and i think they are in the 13 budget, so basically they have been on the hill, the beginning of them they have been on the hill for the better part of a year and they are reductions both of chiefs of those to services and the chairman also. clearly, and i did as well when i was the chairman over year ago, there was a need to come down. there was an expectati
mark bob john and david and the entire family most of which is with us here in the gallery today. their strength and sacrifices have been indispensable to my public service. i am also very much indebted to a great number of talented and loyal friends who have served with me in the senate including by my count, more than 300 senators hundreds of personal and committee staff members and more than a thousand students in turns. in my experience it is difficult to conceive of a better platform from which to devote oneself to public service and the search for solutions to national and international problems. at its best the senate is one of the founders most important creations. a great deal has been written recently about political discord in the united states. some commentators judging that partisanship is at an all-time high. having seen quite a few times in the congress when political struggles were portrayed in this way i hesitate to describe our current state as of the most partisan ever but i do believe that as an
other countries. that's why bob dole and captain dan pe berzynski want us to appe this treaty. i've heard nothing from the other side that outweighs the reality of that consideration for persons, not just veterans, all persons with disabilities. what's really at stake here is big. the outcome here will not, despite the fear, it's not going to change one election here in the senate. it's not going to decide one of the primaries that i fear are distorting the politics of our country. but you know what, mr. president? it will decide whether some people live or die in another country, where there is no accountability and only united states values and standards are the difference to the prospects of someone with a disability. in some countries, children are disposed of, killed because they have a disability. our treaty can actually help prevent that. in some countries, children do not get to go to school and certainly have no prospects of a future simply because they are born with a disability. this treaty will help offer hope where there is none. the united states could actually sit
morning. >> host: good morning, bob. >> caller: question. this is a topic that nobody wants to talk about. the interest-rate cut the interest that is paid on the national debt. presently most of our debt is under short term, under 1%. and it's manipulated, of course, by the federal reserve and treasury department. so it's going to go from say 250 billion interest payments up to 7%, the next several years. one half trillion dollars in interest annually on the national debt. wondering, how is that going to impact our military industrial complex in the near future when that actually comes to be? >> that clearly -- the ticking time bomb for any part of the federal government and probably because of. [indiscernible] , the state government. we are in a time of unusually low interest rates. it will continue for a time, but when they rise it is going to be a body blow to the national politics and the country because, as your caller was indicating, the jump from 1% to 7% is such a massive increase in taxes that the only thing i can think of is, can you say greece? >> host: what does it mean for th
efficiency. so we were able, bob teets before me begin that effort, achieved about $150 billion in savings. we've added about 60 to 70 billion on top of that in terms of further efficiencies. we'll continue to reveal for greater efficiencies can be achieved. right now i ask that question when i first became secretary. you know, what is the role of the service secretary vis-À-vis the service chief? the reality is there is an important role for them because they are civilians. civilians are involved in providing policy in their areas. they also have to negotiate a lot of the politics of capitol hill. so there's an important role for them to play in terms of a particular service. having said that, there are a lot of other places where we can achieve savings in the pentagon and we will. >> as the defense department does the downsizing services committee consider cuts to the number flag and general officers? >> again, i think that's part and parcel as he do force reduction. as i said, we are going to be reducing the force structure in the army to 490,000. the reduced the marines as well and i
minded enough, clear-eyed enough about the russian. bob gates also, who moved over to national security. that little group kind of delayed the process i would say for about six months. the people let state i think were ready to kind of progress, you know, with what had been achieved toward the end of the second reagan administration. but it just really delayed things, because the person who turned that around, and he also deserves a great deal of credit, was jim baker. jim baker did a great job putting together kind of an inter-agency management for this process and the different players and he spent a good deal of time, i would say a year and a half or two years, arrived in moscow with an entourage with the negotiators from cfd of the relevant assistant secretaries. broke them into working groups and i think that process that ros participated in with schivinovski and gorbachev but there was a delay and i don't think it set us back. i don't think there were any problems as a result of that. >> thank you. >> i was just going to say that james baker was named secretary of state the day af
.r.s., these are the numbers. since 1985, senator bob dole filled the tree -- used the gag rule -- seven times. senator byrd used it three times. senator mitchell used it three times. senator lott, when he was majority leader, used the gag rule 11 times. that is, cut off amendments. senator daschle only one time. senator frist, 15 times sm. those are the majority leaders. since 1985, awful those majority leaders -- all of those majority leaders used it a combined 40 times. our current majority leader, senator reid, has used it, as of yesterday, 69 times since he became leader in 2007. this trend, this gagging of the minority, is the primary cause of the senate's dysfunction. so, madam president, i wanted to correct the record. made a mistake and i'm glad to come. i don't want senator dole get the credit for that when senator byrd actually figured it out of and i want to leave a more -- i want to leave an optimistic -- i want to conclude with an optimistic point. i think most of us -- and i would include the distinguished senator from new hampshire in the chair because we've been together in discussions, bip
other young men, a soldier from kansas named bob dole, and one from michigan named phil hart. they formed a lifelong bond, one that endiewrd all the way to the u.s. senate. in 2003 when we dedicated that
of the senate foreign relations committee for her work, senator bob menendez on the foreign relations committee. all those were very instrumental in dealing with this. senator durbin who has been a real champion on human rights. i want to acknowledge kyle parker, a staff person from the helsinki commission who was very instrumental in the development of this legislation, and i want to also acknowledge senator lieberman's work. i know he will be speaking in a few minutes. it was senator lieberman and senator mccain and myself that first suggested that we should pass the magnitsky bill, it's the right thing to do, but we certainly shouldn't let pntr go without attaching the magnitsky bill. i want to thank senator lieberman and thank senator mccain for raising that connection. it was the right thing to do. first of all, it allowed us to get this human rights tool enacted. secondly, i think it gave us the best chance to get the pntr bill done in the right form. so i want to thank both of them for their leadership on that. in 1974, we passed the jackson vanik law. it dealt with the failure of the so
and keep your question as brief as you can. >> yes, bob with british medical journal. most of the talk it's been about impact on the federal budget and balancing one versus another. what analysis has been done on the exchanges, on the impact of the employability of seniors if an employer has to carry these additional costs for an extended period of time? by hypothesis would be that they would make them less employable in some ways. either that, or takes away from employers providing insurance. on the consumer side, how is it that these increased costs affect access to care and quality of care? >> paul, do you want to start the first part of that? >> sure. on your first question, i have actually not heard anyone or any of the studies suggest that any of the medicare eligibility age would increase where employers would not offer coverage at all. for the vast majority of them, employers outside of industries where retiree health plans are highly concentrated, in fact the medicare eligibility age would be large in some employees would continue in the workforce longer because of the subsidies
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17